Cargando…
Writing superiority in cued recall
In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3798867/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24151483 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764 |
_version_ | 1782287825507450880 |
---|---|
author | Fueller, Carina Loescher, Jens Indefrey, Peter |
author_facet | Fueller, Carina Loescher, Jens Indefrey, Peter |
author_sort | Fueller, Carina |
collection | PubMed |
description | In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase during written recall (Kellogg, 2001). In other memory retrieval paradigms, by contrast, either better recall for modality-congruent items or an input-independent writing superiority effect have been found (Grabowski, 2005). In a series of four experiments using a paired associate learning paradigm we tested (a) whether output modality effects on verbal recall can be replicated in a paradigm that does not involve the rejection of semantically related intrusion words, (b) whether a possible superior performance for written recall was due to a slower response onset for writing as compared to speaking in immediate recall, and (c) whether the performance in paired associate word recall was correlated with performance in an additional episodic memory recall task. We observed better written recall in the first half of the recall phase, irrespective of the modality in which the material was presented upon encoding. An explanation for this effect based on longer response latencies for writing and hence more time for memory retrieval could be ruled out by showing that the effect persisted in delayed response versions of the task. Although there was some evidence that stored additional episodic information may contribute to the successful retrieval of associate words, this evidence was only found in the immediate response experiments and hence is most likely independent from the observed output modality effect. In sum, our results from a paired associate learning paradigm suggest that superior performance for written vs. spoken recall cannot be (solely) explained in terms of additional access to stored orthographic representations from the encoding phase. Our findings rather suggest a general writing-superiority effect at the time of memory retrieval. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3798867 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37988672013-10-22 Writing superiority in cued recall Fueller, Carina Loescher, Jens Indefrey, Peter Front Psychol Psychology In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase during written recall (Kellogg, 2001). In other memory retrieval paradigms, by contrast, either better recall for modality-congruent items or an input-independent writing superiority effect have been found (Grabowski, 2005). In a series of four experiments using a paired associate learning paradigm we tested (a) whether output modality effects on verbal recall can be replicated in a paradigm that does not involve the rejection of semantically related intrusion words, (b) whether a possible superior performance for written recall was due to a slower response onset for writing as compared to speaking in immediate recall, and (c) whether the performance in paired associate word recall was correlated with performance in an additional episodic memory recall task. We observed better written recall in the first half of the recall phase, irrespective of the modality in which the material was presented upon encoding. An explanation for this effect based on longer response latencies for writing and hence more time for memory retrieval could be ruled out by showing that the effect persisted in delayed response versions of the task. Although there was some evidence that stored additional episodic information may contribute to the successful retrieval of associate words, this evidence was only found in the immediate response experiments and hence is most likely independent from the observed output modality effect. In sum, our results from a paired associate learning paradigm suggest that superior performance for written vs. spoken recall cannot be (solely) explained in terms of additional access to stored orthographic representations from the encoding phase. Our findings rather suggest a general writing-superiority effect at the time of memory retrieval. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3798867/ /pubmed/24151483 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764 Text en Copyright © 2013 Fueller, Loescher and Indefrey. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Fueller, Carina Loescher, Jens Indefrey, Peter Writing superiority in cued recall |
title | Writing superiority in cued recall |
title_full | Writing superiority in cued recall |
title_fullStr | Writing superiority in cued recall |
title_full_unstemmed | Writing superiority in cued recall |
title_short | Writing superiority in cued recall |
title_sort | writing superiority in cued recall |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3798867/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24151483 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fuellercarina writingsuperiorityincuedrecall AT loescherjens writingsuperiorityincuedrecall AT indefreypeter writingsuperiorityincuedrecall |